|
|
|
|
|
by techiferous
4017 days ago
|
|
We follow a similar process where I work and it works really well. Something being merged into development means that it is 100% complete and ready to be deployed to production at any time. This means all QA and acceptance testing had to happen before merging. |
|
1) A feature that's in develop may sometimes need to wait for something (QA, business validation, a go-ahead, whatever) to go to master, or 2) A feature that's in develop can ALWAYS go to master at any time.
In the first case, you can have feature X blocking all other features because it's in the same branch as them, which is the problem the GP is describing. In the second case, the two branches are the same, so why not just merge into master directly?